FTFA: "Iran's supreme leader was emphatic in his condemnation of the Boston Marathon attacks, but criticized the US for decrying attacks on its own civilians while carrying out drone strikes elsewhere. "

Yup, he's absolutely on the money. Double standards ftw, but you can bet there will be statements released from various sources talking about Iran's human rights record etc in order to try and discredit/belittle his (correct) statements.

NumberFiveIsAlive:Terrorize civilian populations? The US may be the worlds best at killing people and breaking their shiat, but every single airstrike carried out is outnumbered by the countless humanitarian missions we perform.

Well you can't really have it both ways.

Look at Iraq II. When the US initiates massive country-wide bombing that decimates infrastructure (power plants, sewage treatment facilites, bridges, etc), they can't turn around and expect pats on the back for then FIXING what they broke.

"Shock and Awe" was pretty much the definition of state-sponsored terrorism. Bomb the crap out of Baghdad with such ferocity that the civilians cower and refuse to fight.

/maybe you even helped pave a few roads in Fallujah//only after the original roads were destroyed though

Yup, he's absolutely on the money. Double standards ftw, but you can bet there will be statements released from various sources talking about Iran's human rights record etc in order to try and discredit/belittle his (correct) statements.

<b>Pumpernickel bread</b>: <i>Well, not really. While occasionally there is collateral damage, the drone strikes are against those who are part of an organization that is in a state of war with the U.S. Now, if the U.S. were to intentionally drop a bomb on a few Afghani families out on a picnic, then you would have a point.</i>

The only problem with that is that you're basing this on info you receive from the US government.

There were drone attacks going on in Yemen for many, many months before they were reported in the USA. And the US military has a strict policy of not commenting on ANY casualties that result from drone strikes.

Now I'm 100% sure that the US military doesn't intentionally target innocent civilians like the farker in Boston, but that being said, we have no idea how much actual collateral damage does occur, because the US does not report it (the military doesn't report it, and most American media don't actually send any reporters to the SITE of the drone strike attack).

Mostly what you get is the major netwroks parroting whatever they get, verbatim, from White House press releases. So we really have no clue how many actual civilians have died.

And again, if a foreign drone strike that killed 2 "suspected militants" also happened to kill your entire family (by accident), would you honestly say, "Well, hey, my family died in order to protect (insert foreign country name here) and her citizens, I guess I should just get over it."

jakomo002:NumberFiveIsAlive: Shock and Awe was a stupid "Hey look at what we can do" public relations idiocy. Though it wasn't to keep the civilians from fighting, it was to get the guys with guns to put them down. This means the military. Soldiers tend to surrender in droves when they hate being drafted to fight an army that clearly outclasses them 1000 to 1. Also when they're hungry, and they know the "enemy" will feed them and eventually let them go home.

The only ones looking for those "pats on the back" for fixing what we broke were the suits up top and the contractors benefiting from it. The boots hated that. Blow up a road, and we have to fix it to use it later. Blow up a power plant, we have to fix it to keep the civies from rioting. Granted, we did it to keep the enemy from being able to communicate and fight back also, but we knew we would have to fix those, and we didn't expect to be thanked for it. Except by, you know, not planting bombs on us.

I agree with almost all of what you say. The only thing I would point out is that "Shock and Awe" was probably perceived far differently by the people cowering in their bathtubs, holding their crying kids while bombs explode all over their neighbourhoods.

With Iraq, I find it hard to believe that the US military could go SO WRONG when it came to "winning hearts and minds". Pretty much along every step of the way, they turned hearts and minds against them, radicalizing far more people than they "won over", because they were heavy-handed and looked at things from a military point of view.

They could have won over far more people with compassion and a modiucm of understanding than busting down doors in the night and whisking away "suspected militants" to be tortured in the very same prisons Saddam used.

The US military is just that. Military. Occupations have never been a solid part of military training. Kill bad guys, break their shiat, bring in food and other stuff for the civies that suffered from the op. You want a solid occupation? Bring back law enforcement. Let them do their jobs. The problem is Iraqi cops were corrupt shiatheads that helped to terrorize the people. Except Senior shiathead decided that means we should completely disband them and re-invent the wheel.

HOLY CRAP did anyone NOT see that decision ending badly? Boots often facepalm or even facedesk over the decisions made by the brass and the suits.

wouldn't it be more productive to, instead of force, allow them to learn that they need us?

Allow who? To learn that they need us? Need us to do what exactly?If you're talking about the local population, they're not going to listen well to a country half a world away when radicals they live with daily tell them something different. They don't NEED us to do anything, except maybe help them with their local terrorist population that terrorize them as well into getting help and shelter. But again, many do so voluntarily. We want to get at the bad guys. They need us only if they're being terrorized themselves, and many of them are convinced that we started the violence. See "Patriot act". Terrorists attack us, but we allow a law to pass that restricts and oppresses our own rights.

Any chance peace activists could be convinced that we don't need some small village 13,000 miles away to believe us. We just need them to recognize that Mr. Explodey was a bad guy trying to kill us, and/or other innocents. If they don't like us, that's fine. But if they pick up where Mr. Explodey left off, they might learn the physics behind rapid expansion forces just like he did.

NumberFiveIsAlive:Thebloodpotato:opinions like that are why we shouldn't be using drones in my opinion. and yes we terrorize a shiatload of innocent civilians and its human nature for not remembering and our dumbass media's fault for not reporting our good deeds and only reporting "we killed two 'turists today whoopdee doo"

I agree to an extent. We use drones because we can't easily get into the area to capture the bastards. Even our elite DEVGRU had to take an ENORMOUS risk in order to go in there after OBL. It's just not an option in most cases. But that doesn't mean we should let the guys go.

However, humans are fallable, and many bad calls get made during operations, especially when you don't have boots on the ground nearby to verify a target. Personally I blame the bastards that said "We don't need boots on the ground, we can just use drones everywhere for this".

That said, the only BETTER alternatives would be that we find a way to force those nations where drones operate to do the arrestin' themselves, or allow us to go in there and do it. Since that isn't happening, we're left with plan B.

Being a smartass doesn't change the fact that some of these civilians are voluntarily helping the terrorists, and therefore will lie and say anything about it. See funerals for gang bangers here in the US. The families always say "The po-po was wrong about him. He was a good kid. He was just a boy doing boy stuff".

In other cases they are forced to support the terrorists, and they will be killed for saying "Oh thank allah you killed him. He was eating all of our dates and ruined our outhouse!".

Asking locals as to how they feel when a bad guy goes all explodey on them doesn't change the fact that he was a bad guy. Now, do I feel bad when a strike goes wrong and there are good people killed? Again, yes. However remember those Shia funerals in Sadr city. Every single American op seemed to be followed up with crowds carrying kids caskets. How many of you remember that they refused to bury kids bodies, as required by Islam to take place before sunset, in order to trot them out again and again to inflame public opinion?

I didn't think so.

wouldn't it be more productive to, instead of force, allow them to learn that they need us?

jakomo002:NumberFiveIsAlive: Terrorize civilian populations? The US may be the worlds best at killing people and breaking their shiat, but every single airstrike carried out is outnumbered by the countless humanitarian missions we perform.

Well you can't really have it both ways.

Look at Iraq II. When the US initiates massive country-wide bombing that decimates infrastructure (power plants, sewage treatment facilites, bridges, etc), they can't turn around and expect pats on the back for then FIXING what they broke.

"Shock and Awe" was pretty much the definition of state-sponsored terrorism. Bomb the crap out of Baghdad with such ferocity that the civilians cower and refuse to fight.

/maybe you even helped pave a few roads in Fallujah//only after the original roads were destroyed though

Shock and Awe was a stupid "Hey look at what we can do" public relations idiocy. Though it wasn't to keep the civilians from fighting, it was to get the guys with guns to put them down. This means the military. Soldiers tend to surrender in droves when they hate being drafted to fight an army that clearly outclasses them 1000 to 1. Also when they're hungry, and they know the "enemy" will feed them and eventually let them go home.

The only ones looking for those "pats on the back" for fixing what we broke were the suits up top and the contractors benefiting from it. The boots hated that. Blow up a road, and we have to fix it to use it later. Blow up a power plant, we have to fix it to keep the civies from rioting. Granted, we did it to keep the enemy from being able to communicate and fight back also, but we knew we would have to fix those, and we didn't expect to be thanked for it. Except by, you know, not planting bombs on us.

Thebloodpotato:opinions like that are why we shouldn't be using drones in my opinion. and yes we terrorize a shiatload of innocent civilians and its human nature for not remembering and our dumbass media's fault for not reporting our good deeds and only reporting "we killed two 'turists today whoopdee doo"

I agree to an extent. We use drones because we can't easily get into the area to capture the bastards. Even our elite DEVGRU had to take an ENORMOUS risk in order to go in there after OBL. It's just not an option in most cases. But that doesn't mean we should let the guys go.

However, humans are fallable, and many bad calls get made during operations, especially when you don't have boots on the ground nearby to verify a target. Personally I blame the bastards that said "We don't need boots on the ground, we can just use drones everywhere for this".

That said, the only BETTER alternatives would be that we find a way to force those nations where drones operate to do the arrestin' themselves, or allow us to go in there and do it. Since that isn't happening, we're left with plan B.

Being a smartass doesn't change the fact that some of these civilians are voluntarily helping the terrorists, and therefore will lie and say anything about it. See funerals for gang bangers here in the US. The families always say "The po-po was wrong about him. He was a good kid. He was just a boy doing boy stuff".

In other cases they are forced to support the terrorists, and they will be killed for saying "Oh thank allah you killed him. He was eating all of our dates and ruined our outhouse!".

Asking locals as to how they feel when a bad guy goes all explodey on them doesn't change the fact that he was a bad guy. Now, do I feel bad when a strike goes wrong and there are good people killed? Again, yes. However remember those Shia funerals in Sadr city. Every single American op seemed to be followed up with crowds carrying kids caskets. How many of you remember that they refused to bury kids bodies, as required by Islam to take place before sunset, in order to trot them out again and again to inflame public opinion?

Shrinkwrap:The US has killed civilians with its drones, but is not seeking to maximize civilian causalties. It's not in our interest to do so - killing innocents only creates more terrorists in the long run.

You and I may not be in the business of selling terrorism to the public, but that doesn't mean it's a bad business to be in.

Voiceofreason01:Pumpernickel bread: lawboy87: Man I hate to say it, but he does have a point.

Well, not really. While occasionally there is collateral damage, the drone strikes are against those who are part of an organization that is in a state of war with the U.S. Now, if the U.S. were to intentionally drop a bomb on a few Afghani families out on a picnic, then you would have a point.

so accidentally murdering innocent people is OK because...."oops"?

Murder implies intent. I guarantee you the trigger pullers do NOT intend to kill innocents. Now, if some of those "civilians" also happen to be actively supporting terrorists by voluntarily providing food and shelter, excuses and cover stories, even arms and equipment and information? Yeah, that wraps them into the "valid target list". However this is very difficult to prove, and the media can only label the civilians because locals at the site say they are.

Innocents dying at all pisses us off. A HUGE portion of PTSD cases of vets stems from accidental killings of innocents, or from having to take down women and children who are being used as shields or even fighters. It is NOT ok for innocent people to be caught up in a strike. Blame the assholes to decided to become terrorists in the first place and hole up in homes to begin with, not the folks who go after them.

You are of course welcome to your incorrect opinion. To the farmers and villagers whose families are being targeted, the drone strikes serve no purpose other than to terrorize civilian populations. They do generate media attention, but we Americans won't see it unless we go looking for it.

The US has killed civilians with its drones, but is not seeking to maximize civilian causalties. It's not in our interest to do so - killing innocents only creates more terrorists in the long run.

This bomber sought to maximize civilian damage. Equating him with US military actions is dishonest.

Right. I'll believe that we intentionally target farmers and their families they day you show me drone strike footage on a guy on a tractor, or tending goats with his kids, along with the associated chatter between the pilot, operator, CAOC, and strike controller. Difficulty: You can't link clearly edited footage. Anti-war shills have already tried to push crap like that, and failed to convince anyone except other anti-war shills.

An opinion is a statement made based on a personal interpretation of facts. A fact is something that is (true or false). I don't need to interpret facts here. We do not strike farmers. All drone strikes are targeted at terrorists that carry out attacks primarily against civilian, though sometimes also attack military personnel. There hasn't been one single strike of any kind carried out by a drone or manned aircraft specifically at farmers and their families.

Terrorize civilian populations? The US may be the worlds best at killing people and breaking their shiat, but every single airstrike carried out is outnumbered by the countless humanitarian missions we perform. Airlifting food, medical supplies, clothes, and blankets to Iran, A COUNTRY WE DON'T LIKE ONE DAMN BIT, when they suffer from a major earthquake for just one example of thousands in just the last ten years.

I'm welcome to my own opinions of c ...

You seem to have a very specific definition of terrorizing civilian populations. How about you ask the civilians of these countries what they think about what we are doing?

Let's see. Mourning the victims of an attack then blaming innocents for the attack. Where have I heard that bigoted, barbaric spew before? Oh, I remember!

JERRY FALWELL: And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way - all of them who have tried to secularize America - I point the finger in their face and say "you helped this happen."

PAT ROBERTSON: Well, I totally concur, and the problem is we have adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government. And so we're responsible as a free society for what the top people do. And, the top people, of course, is the court system.

Who knew we had backward, intolerant, jack-asses that spread hate in order to bring people to them? You know, Secret MuslinsTM.

Well, not really. While occasionally there is collateral damage, the drone strikes are against those who are part of an organization that is in a state of war with the U.S. Now, if the U.S. were to intentionally drop a bomb on a few Afghani families out on a picnic, then you would have a point.

You are of course welcome to your incorrect opinion. To the farmers and villagers whose families are being targeted, the drone strikes serve no purpose other than to terrorize civilian populations. They do generate media attention, but we Americans won't see it unless we go looking for it.

The US has killed civilians with its drones, but is not seeking to maximize civilian causalties. It's not in our interest to do so - killing innocents only creates more terrorists in the long run.

This bomber sought to maximize civilian damage. Equating him with US military actions is dishonest.

Right. I'll believe that we intentionally target farmers and their families they day you show me drone strike footage on a guy on a tractor, or tending goats with his kids, along with the associated chatter between the pilot, operator, CAOC, and strike controller. Difficulty: You can't link clearly edited footage. Anti-war shills have already tried to push crap like that, and failed to convince anyone except other anti-war shills.

An opinion is a statement made based on a personal interpretation of facts. A fact is something that is (true or false). I don't need to interpret facts here. We do not strike farmers. All drone strikes are targeted at terrorists that carry out attacks primarily against civilian, though sometimes also attack military personnel. There hasn't been one single strike of any kind carried out by a drone or manned aircraft specifically at farmers and their families.

Terrorize civilian populations? The US may be the worlds best at killing people and breaking their shiat, but every single airstrike carried out is outnumbered by the countless humanitarian missions we perform. Airlifting food, medical supplies, clothes, and blankets to Iran, A COUNTRY WE DON'T LIKE ONE DAMN BIT, when they suffer from a major earthquake for just one example of thousands in just the last ten years.

I'm welcome to my own opinions of course, even my incorrect ones. But this isn't one of those. Learn the facts from the people that actually do the damn jobs, not from the shills that lie worse than truthers and birthers.

You are of course welcome to your incorrect opinion. To the farmers and villagers whose families are being targeted, the drone strikes serve no purpose other than to terrorize civilian populations. They do generate media attention, but we Americans won't see it unless we go looking for it.

The US has killed civilians with its drones, but is not seeking to maximize civilian causalties. It's not in our interest to do so - killing innocents only creates more terrorists in the long run.

This bomber sought to maximize civilian damage. Equating him with US military actions is dishonest.

You are of course welcome to your incorrect opinion. To the farmers and villagers whose families are being targeted, the drone strikes serve no purpose other than to terrorize civilian populations. They do generate media attention, but we Americans won't see it unless we go looking for it.

Well, not really. While occasionally there is collateral damage, the drone strikes are against those who are part of an organization that is in a state of war with the U.S. Now, if the U.S. were to intentionally drop a bomb on a few Afghani families out on a picnic, then you would have a point.

epyonyx:Anyone else think that the bombing was just a random nutjob? Wouldn't a terrorist group have claimed this by now?

I've been saying that since the beginning. Terrorists normally take responsibility and make some statement. Frankly with all the nutjobs out there and how easy it is to make bombs, I'm surprised this doesn't happen a lot more often.

Remember kids, the Taliban are Sunni, Khamenei is Shia. There is a difference. But don't worry, he and Iran's theocracy give you other reasons to be mad at them (Like having their kids be used as minefield detection the old fashioned way during the Iran-Iraq war, "If you blow up, we defused a mine!"), so the hate can still flow free.